FLM films - My Webpage

2004-02-18 18:16:45-05:00 - USA TODAY BITES BACK - ("Thomas E. O'Sullivan" <teo3@erols.com>)


From USA TODAY - 2/18/04 - CRITIC'S CORNER BY: ROBERT BIANCO "No series is having a much better season that ANGEL (WB, 9 p.m. ET/PT), as witnessed by tonight's funny, creepy outing about a children's show that steals children's souls while upholding 'a certain standard of quality edutatinment.' The best joke is on Angel, who is turned into a perpetually scowling puppet. It's a great episode, which makes the news that WB is canceling the show that much harder to take. Still, you can't blame the network. It has to make room for the next TARZAN, BIRDS OF PREY or FEARLESS -- or, even better, for yet another attempt to clone DAWSON'S CREEK." T.E.

2004-02-18 22:35:18-06:00 - Re: USA TODAY BITES BACK - ("Joseph S. Powell, III" <NoSpam@nospam.net>)


"Rowan Hawthorn" <rowan_hawthorn@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:GBTYb.8745013$Of.1432605@news.easynews.com... > > "Thomas E. O'Sullivan" <teo3@erols.com> wrote in message > news:4033f19d$0$3091$61fed72c@news.rcn.com... > > From USA TODAY - 2/18/04 - CRITIC'S CORNER BY: ROBERT BIANCO > > > > "No series is having a much better season that ANGEL (WB, 9 p.m. > ET/PT), > > as witnessed by tonight's funny, creepy outing about a children's show > that > > steals children's souls while upholding 'a certain standard of quality > > edutatinment.' The best joke is on Angel, who is turned into a > perpetually > > scowling puppet. It's a great episode, which makes the news that WB is > > canceling the show that much harder to take. Still, you can't blame the > > network. It has to make room for the next TARZAN, BIRDS OF PREY or > > FEARLESS -- or, even better, for yet another attempt to clone DAWSON'S > > CREEK." > > > > Oooo, I like that... > > -- > Rowan Hawthorn > > "I love mankind, it's people I can't stand." - Linus Van Pelt > > Could this bring us some hope??

2004-02-19 00:24:17-05:00 - Re: USA TODAY BITES BACK - (jere7my tho?rpe <j7y@liws.org>)


In article <EHXYb.29232$D_5.20382@edtnps84>, "DangerGirl���" <dangergir_eh@yahoo.com> wrote: > Seems to me that JW won't be surprised by this cancellation, and if his > writing this season is any indication, he is pushing for it to be taken off > the air for what-ever reasons. This puppet show made it more then obvious. > There have been other shows in the past (Dynasty) that did the same type of > tactic. Write worse and worse shows until it just dies. 1) Joss didn't write "Smile Time". Ben Edlund did. 2) Lots of people really enjoyed "Smile Time", so it's certainly possible that Joss did as well. ----j7y -- ************************************************************************** jere7my tho?rpe / 734-769-0913 "There is no spoon." "SPOON!" "There >>> j7y@liws.org <<< is no spoon." "SPOON!" "There is no invert liws to reply via email spoon." "SPOON!" -- The Tick vs. Neo

2004-02-19 00:40:10+00:00 - Re: USA TODAY BITES BACK - (Rowan Hawthorn <rowan_hawthorn@hotmail.com>)


"Thomas E. O'Sullivan" <teo3@erols.com> wrote in message news:4033f19d$0$3091$61fed72c@news.rcn.com... > From USA TODAY - 2/18/04 - CRITIC'S CORNER BY: ROBERT BIANCO > > "No series is having a much better season that ANGEL (WB, 9 p.m. ET/PT), > as witnessed by tonight's funny, creepy outing about a children's show that > steals children's souls while upholding 'a certain standard of quality > edutatinment.' The best joke is on Angel, who is turned into a perpetually > scowling puppet. It's a great episode, which makes the news that WB is > canceling the show that much harder to take. Still, you can't blame the > network. It has to make room for the next TARZAN, BIRDS OF PREY or > FEARLESS -- or, even better, for yet another attempt to clone DAWSON'S > CREEK." > Oooo, I like that... -- Rowan Hawthorn "I love mankind, it's people I can't stand." - Linus Van Pelt

2004-02-19 00:52:39-05:00 - Re: USA TODAY BITES BACK - (wikke@webtv.net)


this epi was co- written by Joss

2004-02-19 01:01:03+00:00 - Re: USA TODAY BITES BACK - (tsd@tetris.gpcc.itd.umich.edu)


In article <4033f19d$0$3091$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>, Thomas E. O'Sullivan <teo3@erols.com> wrote: : From USA TODAY - 2/18/04 - CRITIC'S CORNER BY: ROBERT BIANCO : : "No series is having a much better season that ANGEL (WB, 9 p.m. ET/PT), :as witnessed by tonight's funny, creepy outing about a children's show that :steals children's souls while upholding 'a certain standard of quality :edutatinment.' The best joke is on Angel, who is turned into a perpetually :scowling puppet. It's a great episode, which makes the news that WB is :canceling the show that much harder to take. Still, you can't blame the :network. It has to make room for the next TARZAN, BIRDS OF PREY or :FEARLESS -- or, even better, for yet another attempt to clone DAWSON'S :CREEK." <Smile> Good one. --

2004-02-19 01:50:39-05:00 - Re: USA TODAY BITES BACK - (jere7my tho?rpe <j7y@liws.org>)


In article <BTR1702-8937CA.01240119022004@news.west.earthlink.net>, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > In article <j7y-0F23CB.00241719022004@visonmassif.rs.itd.umich.edu>, > "jere7my tho?rpe" <j7y@liws.org> wrote: > > 1) Joss didn't write "Smile Time". Ben Edlund did. > > From the credits: > > Teleplay by Ben Edlund > > Story by Joss Whedon & Ben Edlund Er...right. Joss didn't write the episode. "Teleplay" is the actual words on the page. "Story" is the idea, conversations, and (possibly) an outline. "Story by" doesn't imply any actual writing. ----j7y -- ************************************************************************** jere7my tho?rpe / 734-769-0913 "There is no spoon." "SPOON!" "There >>> j7y@liws.org <<< is no spoon." "SPOON!" "There is no invert liws to reply via email spoon." "SPOON!" -- The Tick vs. Neo

2004-02-19 01:53:22-05:00 - Re: USA TODAY BITES BACK - (jere7my tho?rpe <j7y@liws.org>)


In article <%MYYb.29292$D_5.3328@edtnps84>, "DangerGirl���" <dangergir_eh@yahoo.com> wrote: > I am not your "buddy" and JW did write it along with Ben Edlund. A "Story by" credit does not imply any actual writing. As I understand it, Edlund based the episode on an idea by Joss. ----j7y -- ************************************************************************** jere7my tho?rpe / 734-769-0913 "There is no spoon." "SPOON!" "There >>> j7y@liws.org <<< is no spoon." "SPOON!" "There is no invert liws to reply via email spoon." "SPOON!" -- The Tick vs. Neo

2004-02-19 03:15:14-05:00 - Re: USA TODAY BITES BACK - (Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net>)


In article <j7y-A5A014.01532219022004@visonmassif.rs.itd.umich.edu>, jere7my tho?rpe <j7y@liws.org> wrote: > In article <%MYYb.29292$D_5.3328@edtnps84>, > "DangerGirl�" <dangergir_eh@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > I am not your "buddy" and JW did write it along with Ben Edlund. > > A "Story by" credit does not imply any actual writing. As I > understand it, Edlund based the episode on an idea by Joss. Considering Joss's history of giving sole credit to pretty much every writer on every series he's run, even when he's been the one behind the story, and has done some major rewrites on some of their scripts, I think that including him in the credit this time means he actually did a fair amount of the writing. -- Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ Quando omni flunkus moritati

2004-02-19 03:54:22-05:00 - Re: USA TODAY BITES BACK - (jere7my tho?rpe <j7y@liws.org>)


In article <190220040315140186%dsample@synapse.net>, Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> wrote: > In article <j7y-A5A014.01532219022004@visonmassif.rs.itd.umich.edu>, > jere7my tho?rpe <j7y@liws.org> wrote: > > > In article <%MYYb.29292$D_5.3328@edtnps84>, > > "DangerGirl���" <dangergir_eh@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > I am not your "buddy" and JW did write it along with Ben Edlund. > > > > A "Story by" credit does not imply any actual writing. As I > > understand it, Edlund based the episode on an idea by Joss. > > Considering Joss's history of giving sole credit to pretty much every > writer on every series he's run, even when he's been the one behind the > story, and has done some major rewrites on some of their scripts, I > think that including him in the credit this time means he actually did > a fair amount of the writing. According to that cancellation article, it was "based on an idea" by Joss: "Next week, on Wednesday, Feb. 18, "Angel" airs one of its most innovative episodes, called "Smile Time." Written and directed by Ben Edlund ("The Tick"), and based on an idea by Whedon, it sees the show's title character, a crusading vampire with a soul, forced to fight evil after being transformed into a walking puppet (with voice by series star David Boreanaz)." http://tv.zap2it.com/tveditorial/tve_main/1,1002,271%7C86346%7C1%7C,00.ht ml The humor sounded more like Edlund than Joss, too. ----j7y -- ************************************************************************** jere7my tho?rpe / 734-769-0913 "There is no spoon." "SPOON!" "There >>> j7y@liws.org <<< is no spoon." "SPOON!" "There is no invert liws to reply via email spoon." "SPOON!" -- The Tick vs. Neo

2004-02-19 04:35:30+00:00 - Re: USA TODAY BITES BACK - (Pnoi <pnoi@kremlin.nyet.ru>)


On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 18:16:45 -0500, I had to reply to what Thomas E. O'Sullivan wrote: > From USA TODAY - 2/18/04 - CRITIC'S CORNER BY: ROBERT BIANCO > > "No series is having a much better season that ANGEL (WB, 9 p.m. ET/PT), > as witnessed by tonight's funny, creepy outing about a children's show that > steals children's souls while upholding 'a certain standard of quality > edutatinment.' The best joke is on Angel, who is turned into a perpetually > scowling puppet. It's a great episode, which makes the news that WB is > canceling the show that much harder to take. Still, you can't blame the > network. It has to make room for the next TARZAN, BIRDS OF PREY or > FEARLESS -- or, even better, for yet another attempt to clone DAWSON'S > CREEK." > > T.E. Worse than Tarzan. It looks like WB canned Angel to replace it with "High School Reunion", former girlfriends try to get their high school sweethearts back from the girls who got them. Yeah like I'm going to watch that. If Angel fans want to punish WB then except for "Smallville" boycott the other WB products.

2004-02-19 05:04:09+00:00 - Re: USA TODAY BITES BACK - (Rowan Hawthorn <rowan_hawthorn@hotmail.com>)


"Joseph S. Powell, III" <NoSpam@nospam.net> wrote in message news:1038f98pi2cka82@corp.supernews.com... > > "Rowan Hawthorn" <rowan_hawthorn@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:GBTYb.8745013$Of.1432605@news.easynews.com... > > > > "Thomas E. O'Sullivan" <teo3@erols.com> wrote in message > > news:4033f19d$0$3091$61fed72c@news.rcn.com... > > > From USA TODAY - 2/18/04 - CRITIC'S CORNER BY: ROBERT BIANCO > > > > > > "No series is having a much better season that ANGEL (WB, 9 p.m. > > ET/PT), > > > as witnessed by tonight's funny, creepy outing about a children's show > > that > > > steals children's souls while upholding 'a certain standard of quality > > > edutatinment.' The best joke is on Angel, who is turned into a > > perpetually > > > scowling puppet. It's a great episode, which makes the news that WB is > > > canceling the show that much harder to take. Still, you can't blame the > > > network. It has to make room for the next TARZAN, BIRDS OF PREY or > > > FEARLESS -- or, even better, for yet another attempt to clone DAWSON'S > > > CREEK." > > > > > > > Oooo, I like that... > > > > -- > > Rowan Hawthorn > > > > "I love mankind, it's people I can't stand." - Linus Van Pelt > > > > > > Could this bring us some hope?? > Even if it doesn't, it tickles me to see USA Today take that broad a swipe at them. -- Rowan Hawthorn "I love mankind, it's people I can't stand." - Linus Van Pelt

2004-02-19 05:19:32+00:00 - Re: USA TODAY BITES BACK - (DangerGirl� <dangergir_eh@yahoo.com>)


"Thomas E. O'Sullivan" <teo3@erols.com> wrote in message news:4033f19d$0$3091$61fed72c@news.rcn.com... > From USA TODAY - 2/18/04 - CRITIC'S CORNER BY: ROBERT BIANCO > > "No series is having a much better season that ANGEL (WB, 9 p.m. ET/PT), > as witnessed by tonight's funny, creepy outing about a children's show that > steals children's souls while upholding 'a certain standard of quality > edutatinment.' The best joke is on Angel, who is turned into a perpetually > scowling puppet. It's a great episode, which makes the news that WB is > canceling the show that much harder to take. Still, you can't blame the > network. It has to make room for the next TARZAN, BIRDS OF PREY or > FEARLESS -- or, even better, for yet another attempt to clone DAWSON'S > CREEK." > > T.E Seems to me that JW won't be surprised by this cancellation, and if his writing this season is any indication, he is pushing for it to be taken off the air for what-ever reasons. This puppet show made it more then obvious. There have been other shows in the past (Dynasty) that did the same type of tactic. Write worse and worse shows until it just dies. It's a shame, I really enjoyed it when he tried. The characters have no personalities they are like watching paint dry, Angel is like a piece of wood. The only animated and semi interesting character is Spike and he is new and only tends to end up annoying. There is absolutely nothing at all interesting or intriguing about any of them this season. JW just wants out - its obvious.

2004-02-19 06:23:58+00:00 - Re: USA TODAY BITES BACK - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <j7y-0F23CB.00241719022004@visonmassif.rs.itd.umich.edu>, "jere7my tho?rpe" <j7y@liws.org> wrote: > In article <EHXYb.29232$D_5.20382@edtnps84>, > "DangerGirl���" <dangergir_eh@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Seems to me that JW won't be surprised by this cancellation, and if his > > writing this season is any indication, he is pushing for it to be taken > > off the air for what-ever reasons. This puppet show made it more then > > obvious. There have been other shows in the past (Dynasty) that did the same > > type of tactic. Write worse and worse shows until it just dies. > > 1) Joss didn't write "Smile Time". Ben Edlund did.

2004-02-19 06:33:31+00:00 - Re: USA TODAY BITES BACK - (DangerGirl� <dangergir_eh@yahoo.com>)


"luigi" <bob@bobsplace.com> wrote in message news:403449f9$0$19704$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au... > > "DangerGirl���" <dangergir_eh@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:EHXYb.29232$D_5.20382@edtnps84... > > > > "Thomas E. O'Sullivan" <teo3@erols.com> wrote in message > > news:4033f19d$0$3091$61fed72c@news.rcn.com... > > > From USA TODAY - 2/18/04 - CRITIC'S CORNER BY: ROBERT BIANCO > > > > > > "No series is having a much better season that ANGEL (WB, 9 p.m. > > ET/PT), > > > as witnessed by tonight's funny, creepy outing about a children's show > > that > > > steals children's souls while upholding 'a certain standard of quality > > > edutatinment.' The best joke is on Angel, who is turned into a > > perpetually > > > scowling puppet. It's a great episode, which makes the news that WB is > > > canceling the show that much harder to take. Still, you can't blame the > > > network. It has to make room for the next TARZAN, BIRDS OF PREY or > > > FEARLESS -- or, even better, for yet another attempt to clone DAWSON'S > > > CREEK." > > > > > > T.E > > > > Seems to me that JW won't be surprised by this cancellation, and if his > > writing this season is any indication, he is pushing for it to be taken > off > > the air for what-ever reasons. This puppet show made it more then obvious. > > There have been other shows in the past (Dynasty) that did the same type > of > > tactic. Write worse and worse shows until it just dies. It's a shame, I > > really enjoyed it when he tried. The characters have no personalities they > > are like watching paint dry, Angel is like a piece of wood. The only > > animated and semi interesting character is Spike and he is new and only > > tends to end up annoying. There is absolutely nothing at all interesting > or > > intriguing about any of them this season. JW just wants out - its obvious. > > > > > > Nice theory there buddy but I don't think so. > > Especially considering all the people here that are loving the new season > and the 'puppet' > episode (which wasn't written by Whedon by the way). > And if you read any of the articles about the cancellation you would no > doubt have noticed > Whedon's praise of the show and in particular the current season. > The critics seem to be loving it too. I am not your "buddy" and JW did write it along with Ben Edlund. The poor ratings would be a indication that yes in-fact it is slipping. From what I have read here this season not very many people like it at all. Yes it seems I am the only one who hated the puppets but I am not the only one who thinks the show has fallen. I am merely trying to find the "why". There is no spark in the show anymore, are you denying that? Episode Number 102 First Aired February 18, 2004 Production Code 5ADH14 Story Joss Whedon & Ben Edlund Director Ben Edlund

2004-02-19 07:45:08+00:00 - Re: USA TODAY BITES BACK - (Chris Zabel <alephnull@earthlink.net>)


"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:BTR1702-8937CA.01240119022004@news.west.earthlink.net... > From the credits: > > Teleplay by Ben Edlund > > Story by Joss Whedon & Ben Edlund Which very possibly means that Joss told Ben to write an episode where Angel is turned into a puppet and it involves an evil morning kid's program. Most of the humor seemed very in line with Edlund's prior work. I suspect he wrote the vast majority of the actual script. -- "They tease me now, telling me it was only a dream. But does it matter whether it was a dream or reality, if the dream made known to me the truth?" - Dostoevsky

2004-02-19 10:08:12+00:00 - Re: USA TODAY BITES BACK - (tchwrtrmcf@aol.com)


yes, there are sparks left in the show. it's got sparks coming out of it's ass, damnit! (now THERE's a disturbing image!)

2004-02-19 14:07:33+00:00 - Re: USA TODAY BITES BACK - (DangerGirl� <dangergir_eh@yahoo.com>)


"jere7my tho?rpe" <j7y@liws.org> wrote in message news:j7y-5A657D.03542219022004@visonmassif.rs.itd.umich.edu... > In article <190220040315140186%dsample@synapse.net>, > Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> wrote: > > > In article <j7y-A5A014.01532219022004@visonmassif.rs.itd.umich.edu>, > > jere7my tho?rpe <j7y@liws.org> wrote: > > > > > In article <%MYYb.29292$D_5.3328@edtnps84>, > > > "DangerGirl���" <dangergir_eh@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > I am not your "buddy" and JW did write it along with Ben Edlund. > > > > > > A "Story by" credit does not imply any actual writing. As I > > > understand it, Edlund based the episode on an idea by Joss. > > > > Considering Joss's history of giving sole credit to pretty much every > > writer on every series he's run, even when he's been the one behind the > > story, and has done some major rewrites on some of their scripts, I > > think that including him in the credit this time means he actually did > > a fair amount of the writing. > > According to that cancellation article, it was "based on an idea" > by Joss: > > "Next week, on Wednesday, Feb. 18, "Angel" airs one of its most > innovative episodes, called "Smile Time." Written and directed by Ben > Edlund ("The Tick"), and based on an idea by Whedon, it sees the show's > title character, a crusading vampire with a soul, forced to fight evil > after being transformed into a walking puppet (with voice by series star > David Boreanaz)." > > http://tv.zap2it.com/tveditorial/tve_main/1,1002,271%7C86346%7C1%7C,00.ht > ml > > The humor sounded more like Edlund than Joss, too. > > ----j7y You know I really don't care if JW wrote it or Edlund wrote it or if Jim Hensen did, I didn't like it. If I wanted puppets I'd watch sesame street. What I liked about the writing of Angel was its intellectual ability to attract people of a different generation. This ep was not geared that way. I certainly found the Muppets much funnier and I expected that level of humour from them. Not from this show, I expect better from this show, but this season it's not surprising.

2004-02-19 15:32:13+10:00 - Re: USA TODAY BITES BACK - (luigi <bob@bobsplace.com>)


"DangerGirl���" <dangergir_eh@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:EHXYb.29232$D_5.20382@edtnps84... > > "Thomas E. O'Sullivan" <teo3@erols.com> wrote in message > news:4033f19d$0$3091$61fed72c@news.rcn.com... > > From USA TODAY - 2/18/04 - CRITIC'S CORNER BY: ROBERT BIANCO > > > > "No series is having a much better season that ANGEL (WB, 9 p.m. > ET/PT), > > as witnessed by tonight's funny, creepy outing about a children's show > that > > steals children's souls while upholding 'a certain standard of quality > > edutatinment.' The best joke is on Angel, who is turned into a > perpetually > > scowling puppet. It's a great episode, which makes the news that WB is > > canceling the show that much harder to take. Still, you can't blame the > > network. It has to make room for the next TARZAN, BIRDS OF PREY or > > FEARLESS -- or, even better, for yet another attempt to clone DAWSON'S > > CREEK." > > > > T.E > > Seems to me that JW won't be surprised by this cancellation, and if his > writing this season is any indication, he is pushing for it to be taken off > the air for what-ever reasons. This puppet show made it more then obvious. > There have been other shows in the past (Dynasty) that did the same type of > tactic. Write worse and worse shows until it just dies. It's a shame, I > really enjoyed it when he tried. The characters have no personalities they > are like watching paint dry, Angel is like a piece of wood. The only > animated and semi interesting character is Spike and he is new and only > tends to end up annoying. There is absolutely nothing at all interesting or > intriguing about any of them this season. JW just wants out - its obvious. > > Nice theory there buddy but I don't think so. Especially considering all the people here that are loving the new season and the 'puppet' episode (which wasn't written by Whedon by the way). And if you read any of the articles about the cancellation you would no doubt have noticed Whedon's praise of the show and in particular the current season. The critics seem to be loving it too.

2004-02-19 16:41:28+00:00 - Re: USA TODAY BITES BACK - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: USA TODAY BITES BACK >From: "jere7my tho?rpe" j7y@liws.org >Date: 2/18/2004 10:50 PM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <j7y-DFCBBF.01503819022004@visonmassif.rs.itd.umich.edu> > >In article <BTR1702-8937CA.01240119022004@news.west.earthlink.net>, > BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> In article <j7y-0F23CB.00241719022004@visonmassif.rs.itd.umich.edu>, >> "jere7my tho?rpe" <j7y@liws.org> wrote: >> > 1) Joss didn't write "Smile Time". Ben Edlund did. >> >> From the credits: >> >> Teleplay by Ben Edlund >> >> Story by Joss Whedon & Ben Edlund > > Er...right. Joss didn't write the episode. > > "Teleplay" is the actual words on the page. "Story" is the idea, >conversations, and (possibly) an outline. "Story by" doesn't imply any >actual writing. > I don't buy it. I would be willing to bet Joss did a lot of the writing on this. The humor had his stamp. "I'm no one's wife but oh I love my life and all that jazz." -- Chicago

2004-02-19 16:44:55+10:00 - Re: USA TODAY BITES BACK - (luigi <bob@bobsplace.com>)


"DangerGirl���" <dangergir_eh@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:%MYYb.29292$D_5.3328@edtnps84... > > "luigi" <bob@bobsplace.com> wrote in message > news:403449f9$0$19704$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au... > > > > "DangerGirl���" <dangergir_eh@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:EHXYb.29232$D_5.20382@edtnps84... > > > > > > "Thomas E. O'Sullivan" <teo3@erols.com> wrote in message > > > news:4033f19d$0$3091$61fed72c@news.rcn.com... > > > > From USA TODAY - 2/18/04 - CRITIC'S CORNER BY: ROBERT BIANCO > > > > > > > > "No series is having a much better season that ANGEL (WB, 9 p.m. > > > ET/PT), > > > > as witnessed by tonight's funny, creepy outing about a children's show > > > that > > > > steals children's souls while upholding 'a certain standard of quality > > > > edutatinment.' The best joke is on Angel, who is turned into a > > > perpetually > > > > scowling puppet. It's a great episode, which makes the news that WB > is > > > > canceling the show that much harder to take. Still, you can't blame > the > > > > network. It has to make room for the next TARZAN, BIRDS OF PREY or > > > > FEARLESS -- or, even better, for yet another attempt to clone DAWSON'S > > > > CREEK." > > > > > > > > T.E > > > > > > Seems to me that JW won't be surprised by this cancellation, and if his > > > writing this season is any indication, he is pushing for it to be taken > > off > > > the air for what-ever reasons. This puppet show made it more then > obvious. > > > There have been other shows in the past (Dynasty) that did the same type > > of > > > tactic. Write worse and worse shows until it just dies. It's a shame, I > > > really enjoyed it when he tried. The characters have no personalities > they > > > are like watching paint dry, Angel is like a piece of wood. The only > > > animated and semi interesting character is Spike and he is new and only > > > tends to end up annoying. There is absolutely nothing at all > interesting > > or > > > intriguing about any of them this season. JW just wants out - its > obvious. > > > > > > > > > > Nice theory there buddy but I don't think so. > > > > Especially considering all the people here that are loving the new season > > and the 'puppet' > > episode (which wasn't written by Whedon by the way). > > And if you read any of the articles about the cancellation you would no > > doubt have noticed > > Whedon's praise of the show and in particular the current season. > > The critics seem to be loving it too. > > I am not your "buddy" and JW did write it along with Ben Edlund. The poor > ratings would be a indication that yes in-fact it is slipping. From what I > have read here this season not very many people like it at all. Yes it seems > I am the only one who hated the puppets but I am not the only one who thinks > the show has fallen. I am merely trying to find the "why". There is no spark > in the show anymore, are you denying that? > > Episode Number 102 > First Aired February 18, 2004 > Production Code 5ADH14 > Story Joss Whedon & Ben Edlund > > Director Ben Edlund > Hey if you don't like it then that's your prerogative, I just think that the idea that Joss is deliberately 'throwing' the season is quite frankly absurd. (oh and you left out teleplay by Ben Edlund).

2004-02-19 17:39:18-05:00 - Re: USA TODAY BITES BACK - (jere7my tho?rpe <j7y@liws.org>)


In article <20040219114128.17062.00002516@mb-m03.aol.com>, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: > I don't buy it. I would be willing to bet Joss did a lot of the writing on > this. The humor had his stamp. That cancellation article indicated that Edlund wrote it based on "an idea" by Joss. That's all the hard info we have. ----j7y -- ************************************************************************** jere7my tho?rpe / 734-769-0913 "There is no spoon." "SPOON!" "There >>> j7y@liws.org <<< is no spoon." "SPOON!" "There is no invert liws to reply via email spoon." "SPOON!" -- The Tick vs. Neo

2004-02-19 17:41:46-05:00 - Re: USA TODAY BITES BACK - (jere7my tho?rpe <j7y@liws.org>)


In article <BTR1702-F77915.12465819022004@news.west.earthlink.net>, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > In article <j7y-DFCBBF.01503819022004@visonmassif.rs.itd.umich.edu>, > "jere7my tho?rpe" <j7y@liws.org> wrote: > > "Teleplay" is the actual words on the page. "Story" is the idea, > > conversations, and (possibly) an outline. "Story by" doesn't imply any > > actual writing. > > Actually, it does. Just not the writing of the script. Like when Stephen > King wrote an episode of the X-Files. He wrote it in story/novel form, > then the show's writers turned it into a script. No, it doesn't _imply_ any actual writing. It _could_ mean there was writing. A "story by" credit could also mean that the scriptwriter based it on a conversation they had over dinner. So no, it doesn't _necessarily_ imply writing, though (as you point out) it _may_ imply writing. ----j7y -- ************************************************************************** jere7my tho?rpe / 734-769-0913 "There is no spoon." "SPOON!" "There >>> j7y@liws.org <<< is no spoon." "SPOON!" "There is no invert liws to reply via email spoon." "SPOON!" -- The Tick vs. Neo

2004-02-19 17:46:54+00:00 - Re: USA TODAY BITES BACK - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <j7y-DFCBBF.01503819022004@visonmassif.rs.itd.umich.edu>, "jere7my tho?rpe" <j7y@liws.org> wrote: > In article <BTR1702-8937CA.01240119022004@news.west.earthlink.net>, > BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > In article <j7y-0F23CB.00241719022004@visonmassif.rs.itd.umich.edu>, > > "jere7my tho?rpe" <j7y@liws.org> wrote: > > > 1) Joss didn't write "Smile Time". Ben Edlund did. > > > > From the credits: > > > > Teleplay by Ben Edlund > > > > Story by Joss Whedon & Ben Edlund > > Er...right. Joss didn't write the episode. > > "Teleplay" is the actual words on the page. "Story" is the idea, > conversations, and (possibly) an outline. "Story by" doesn't imply any > actual writing. Actually, it does. Just not the writing of the script. Like when Stephen King wrote an episode of the X-Files. He wrote it in story/novel form, then the show's writers turned it into a script.

2004-02-19 18:04:07+00:00 - Re: USA TODAY BITES BACK - (Mentski <mentski@shimmyshimmyyallshimmyyamshimmyyaybtinterbunknet.com>)


"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message news:20040219114128.17062.00002516@mb-m03.aol.com... > >Subject: Re: USA TODAY BITES BACK > >From: "jere7my tho?rpe" j7y@liws.org > >Date: 2/18/2004 10:50 PM Pacific Standard Time > >Message-id: <j7y-DFCBBF.01503819022004@visonmassif.rs.itd.umich.edu> > > > >In article <BTR1702-8937CA.01240119022004@news.west.earthlink.net>, > > BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > >> In article <j7y-0F23CB.00241719022004@visonmassif.rs.itd.umich.edu>, > >> "jere7my tho?rpe" <j7y@liws.org> wrote: > >> > 1) Joss didn't write "Smile Time". Ben Edlund did. > >> > >> From the credits: > >> > >> Teleplay by Ben Edlund > >> > >> Story by Joss Whedon & Ben Edlund > > > > Er...right. Joss didn't write the episode. > > > > "Teleplay" is the actual words on the page. "Story" is the idea, > >conversations, and (possibly) an outline. "Story by" doesn't imply any > >actual writing. > > > > I don't buy it. I would be willing to bet Joss did a lot of the writing on > this. The humor had his stamp. > > Don't you know "The Tick"? Ben and Joss have been on the same wavelength for years. Its a shame they didn't team up sooner. 'Ski -- http://mentski.noelstilllovesyou.co.uk http://www.noelstilllovesyou.co.uk "The rest of the site is vile", Matt Kelly, The Mirror "Very scary and should be stopped immediately", Amy Vickers, The Mirror

2004-02-19 19:30:53-08:00 - Re: USA TODAY BITES BACK - (Mark_Reichert@hotmail.com)


Pnoi <pnoi@kremlin.nyet.ru> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.02.19.04.35.59.499504@kremlin.nyet.ru>... > > FEARLESS -- or, even better, for yet another attempt to clone DAWSON'S > > CREEK." > > > > T.E. > <snip> > If Angel fans want to punish WB then except for "Smallville" boycott the > other WB products. Except isn't Smallville a DAWSON'S CREEK clone as well? I never really watched DAWSON'S CREEK, but the soap opera elements of Smallville are the only things that drive me up the wall on the show.

2004-02-19 19:51:21-05:00 - Re: USA TODAY BITES BACK - (Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net>)


In article <j7y-55E77E.17414619022004@visonmassif.rs.itd.umich.edu>, jere7my tho?rpe <j7y@liws.org> wrote: > In article <BTR1702-F77915.12465819022004@news.west.earthlink.net>, > BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > In article <j7y-DFCBBF.01503819022004@visonmassif.rs.itd.umich.edu>, > > "jere7my tho?rpe" <j7y@liws.org> wrote: > > > > "Teleplay" is the actual words on the page. "Story" is the idea, > > > conversations, and (possibly) an outline. "Story by" doesn't imply any > > > actual writing. > > > > Actually, it does. Just not the writing of the script. Like when Stephen > > King wrote an episode of the X-Files. He wrote it in story/novel form, > > then the show's writers turned it into a script. > > No, it doesn't _imply_ any actual writing. It _could_ mean there > was writing. A "story by" credit could also mean that the scriptwriter > based it on a conversation they had over dinner. > > So no, it doesn't _necessarily_ imply writing, though (as you point > out) it _may_ imply writing. But since Joss has had a lot more involvement in *every* Buffy, Angel and Firefly story than just a conversation over dinner, and every writer who has ever worked on any of his shows has said that he is very generous about giving sole credit to others, even when he has done substantial rewrites on their scripts, I think that including him in the "story by" credit means that he made a very significant contribution do it. -- Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ Quando omni flunkus moritati

2004-02-19 23:01:41+00:00 - Re: USA TODAY BITES BACK - (Rowan Hawthorn <rowan_hawthorn@hotmail.com>)


"ragam" <ragam@ragam.com> wrote in message news:jdea30dbofb779r9b50rtsv58oj5krpf5c@4ax.com... > Plonk...kill filtered...I don't have the time or the patience to read such > drivel from an obvious non-fan of the show. But don't worry, there's plenty of > TV for people of your viewing level out there! I'm sure you'll enjoy High School > Reunion or Extreme Makeover... I reached the same conclusions and the same response - killfiled three others today, as well. Damn. I've used my killfile more over the past three weeks than in the entire two years I've been on these newsgroups. I don't mind reading someone not liking an episode for whatever *reason,* but I'm not willing to waste any more time reading trash posts from people who don't like the show, never liked the show, never liked Buffy, it's all been crap from day one, no-talent actors, no-talent writers, time to kill the show, yada-yada-yada. As long as there are still posters who are willing to talk about the shows and discuss their likes and dislikes, I'll probably stick around, cause those posts I enjoy reading whether I agree with the poster's opinions or not, but right now I'm finding that I have more *conversations* marked "ignore" than I'm bothering to read. -- Rowan Hawthorn "I love mankind, it's people I can't stand." - Linus Van Pelt

2004-02-20 05:57:07-05:00 - Re: USA TODAY BITES BACK - (zzn <zzn@nospam.com>)


On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 06:33:31 GMT, "DangerGirl�" <dangergir_eh@yahoo.com> wrote: > >"luigi" <bob@bobsplace.com> wrote in message >news:403449f9$0$19704$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au... >> >> "DangerGirl�" <dangergir_eh@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:EHXYb.29232$D_5.20382@edtnps84... >> > >> > "Thomas E. O'Sullivan" <teo3@erols.com> wrote in message >> > news:4033f19d$0$3091$61fed72c@news.rcn.com... >> > > From USA TODAY - 2/18/04 - CRITIC'S CORNER BY: ROBERT BIANCO >> > > >> > > "No series is having a much better season that ANGEL (WB, 9 p.m. >> > ET/PT), >> > > as witnessed by tonight's funny, creepy outing about a children's show >> > that >> > > steals children's souls while upholding 'a certain standard of quality >> > > edutatinment.' The best joke is on Angel, who is turned into a >> > perpetually >> > > scowling puppet. It's a great episode, which makes the news that WB >is >> > > canceling the show that much harder to take. Still, you can't blame >the >> > > network. It has to make room for the next TARZAN, BIRDS OF PREY or >> > > FEARLESS -- or, even better, for yet another attempt to clone DAWSON'S >> > > CREEK." >> > > >> > > T.E >> > >> > Seems to me that JW won't be surprised by this cancellation, and if his >> > writing this season is any indication, he is pushing for it to be taken >> off >> > the air for what-ever reasons. This puppet show made it more then >obvious. >> > There have been other shows in the past (Dynasty) that did the same type >> of >> > tactic. Write worse and worse shows until it just dies. It's a shame, I >> > really enjoyed it when he tried. The characters have no personalities >they >> > are like watching paint dry, Angel is like a piece of wood. The only >> > animated and semi interesting character is Spike and he is new and only >> > tends to end up annoying. There is absolutely nothing at all >interesting >> or >> > intriguing about any of them this season. JW just wants out - its >obvious. >> > >> > >> >> Nice theory there buddy but I don't think so. >> >> Especially considering all the people here that are loving the new season >> and the 'puppet' >> episode (which wasn't written by Whedon by the way). >> And if you read any of the articles about the cancellation you would no >> doubt have noticed >> Whedon's praise of the show and in particular the current season. >> The critics seem to be loving it too. > >I am not your "buddy" and JW did write it along with Ben Edlund. The poor >ratings would be a indication that yes in-fact it is slipping. From what I >have read here this season not very many people like it at all. Yes it seems >I am the only one who hated the puppets but I am not the only one who thinks >the show has fallen. I am merely trying to find the "why". There is no spark >in the show anymore, are you denying that? > > Episode Number 102 > First Aired February 18, 2004 > Production Code 5ADH14 > Story Joss Whedon & Ben Edlund > > Director Ben Edlund > > > Although season 5 is better than season 3 and 4 the show is slipping however ratings are no indication of that since the show has never been a huge ratings grabber. Nor was Buffy at it's height. If you're going to judge it based on that then Smallville must be one of the best written shows on tv.

2004-02-20 07:22:08-05:00 - Re: USA TODAY BITES BACK - (forge <forge@diespammersdie.youneedageek.com>)


On 19 Feb 2004 19:30:53 -0800, Mark_Reichert@hotmail.com (Mark Reichert) wrote: >> > FEARLESS -- or, even better, for yet another attempt to clone DAWSON'S >> > CREEK." ><snip> >> If Angel fans want to punish WB then except for "Smallville" boycott the >> other WB products. > >Except isn't Smallville a DAWSON'S CREEK clone as well? I never >really watched DAWSON'S CREEK, but the soap opera elements of >Smallville are the only things that drive me up the wall on the show. Everything on the WB is a clone of Dawson's Creek; join in my game - whenever they premiere a new show, pick a noun that fits it to go after the word "Dawson's" and post it here. Funniest name wins a new Jeep. (snerk)

2004-02-20 13:00:46-08:00 - Re: USA TODAY BITES BACK - (nospam@nospam.com)


In article <opr3n9znmvjtszlz@news.verizon.net>, Sandra S <sandora@verizon.net> wrote: > There's been so many accolades that I'm surprised the show was cancelled; Accolades don't pay the bills. 4 years of keeping a mediocre ratings show going cause of 'critical praise' is quite long enough. the WB expecting season 5 to have an up in ratings isn't unexpected or uncalled for. Not on a show with a budget like Angel (which is still higher than shows like Gilmore Girls and OTH, even with cutting 1/2 of the location shooting). since the ratings increase didn't stick, it's a sign (right or wrong) that enough folks aren't hip to the new format so either the new viewers left, or some of the old timers did. But if the WB was counting on that increase, then when they set the ad rates for this season, they may have increased their promise, which means losing money for every ep that doesn't make the score.

2004-02-20 14:17:32+00:00 - Re: USA TODAY BITES BACK - (Sandra S <sandora@verizon.net>)


On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 06:33:31 GMT, DangerGirlᅵ <dangergir_eh@yahoo.com> wrote: There is no > spark > in the show anymore, are you denying that? > I'm denying that; I think this is the best season ever. And, apparantly I'm not alone, since I have never seen as much positive reaction from the critics as there's been this season. There's been so many accolades that I'm surprised the show was cancelled; especially since most of the other shows airing on the WB have been critically panned this season (Gilmore Girls, Smallville, Charmed... oh wait, not Charmed- that never got any praise whatsoever from the critics)! Sandra

2004-02-20 15:38:58-08:00 - Re: USA TODAY BITES BACK - (barnett@shentel.net)


"Thomas E. O'Sullivan" <teo3@erols.com> wrote in message news:<4033f19d$0$3091$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>... > From USA TODAY - 2/18/04 - CRITIC'S CORNER BY: ROBERT BIANCO > > "No series is having a much better season that ANGEL (WB, 9 p.m. ET/PT), > as witnessed by tonight's funny, creepy outing about a children's show that > steals children's souls while upholding 'a certain standard of quality > edutatinment.' The best joke is on Angel, who is turned into a perpetually > scowling puppet. It's a great episode, which makes the news that WB is > canceling the show that much harder to take. Still, you can't blame the > network. It has to make room for the next TARZAN, BIRDS OF PREY or > FEARLESS -- or, even better, for yet another attempt to clone DAWSON'S > CREEK." > > T.E. I was wondering if we could get the critic to sign the petition. JLB

2004-02-20 18:52:52-08:00 - Re: USA TODAY BITES BACK - (barnett@shentel.net)


<nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<200220041300469462%nospam@nospam.com>... > In article <opr3n9znmvjtszlz@news.verizon.net>, Sandra S > <sandora@verizon.net> wrote: > > > > There's been so many accolades that I'm surprised the show was cancelled; > > Accolades don't pay the bills. > > 4 years of keeping a mediocre ratings show going cause of 'critical > praise' is quite long enough. the WB expecting season 5 to have an up > in ratings isn't unexpected or uncalled for. Not on a show with a > budget like Angel (which is still higher than shows like Gilmore Girls > and OTH, even with cutting 1/2 of the location shooting). > > since the ratings increase didn't stick, it's a sign (right or wrong) > that enough folks aren't hip to the new format so either the new > viewers left, or some of the old timers did. But if the WB was counting > on that increase, then when they set the ad rates for this season, they > may have increased their promise, which means losing money for every ep > that doesn't make the score. I never get why networks expect a dramatic change to cause a ratings increase. Subtle changes sure, you keep the old and have a hope of drawing in new. But you make a major dramatic change you're just as likely to get rid of the old viewers as to keep them, and you're betting on new viewers that may never materialize. JLB

2004-02-20 19:53:25+00:00 - Re: USA TODAY BITES BACK - (DangerGirl� <dangergir_eh@yahoo.com>)


Sorry I wasn't amused by the puppets, guess I just don't have that level of mentality. I grew out of the Muppets years ago. One day you will catch up. Obviously your only way of responding is to act like a 2 year old who was just told that his favourite ice cream isn't the favourite of all his friends. Sorry for the wake up call. If you have seen anything I have written in this group over the years you would know that I am a big fan of Angel and have always loved the show. So go back to your ASSuming all you want to about me. You are not worth my time. "ragam" <ragam@ragam.com> wrote in message news:jdea30dbofb779r9b50rtsv58oj5krpf5c@4ax.com... > Plonk...kill filtered...I don't have the time or the patience to read such > drivel from an obvious non-fan of the show. But don't worry, there's plenty of > TV for people of your viewing level out there! I'm sure you'll enjoy High School > Reunion or Extreme Makeover... > > On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 05:19:32 GMT, "DangerGirl���" <dangergir_eh@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >Seems to me that JW won't be surprised by this cancellation, and if his > >writing this season is any indication, he is pushing for it to be taken off > >the air for what-ever reasons. This puppet show made it more then obvious. > >There have been other shows in the past (Dynasty) that did the same type of > >tactic. Write worse and worse shows until it just dies. It's a shame, I > >really enjoyed it when he tried. The characters have no personalities they > >are like watching paint dry, Angel is like a piece of wood. The only > >animated and semi interesting character is Spike and he is new and only > >tends to end up annoying. There is absolutely nothing at all interesting or > >intriguing about any of them this season. JW just wants out - its obvious. > > >

2004-02-20 20:20:17-05:00 - Re: USA TODAY BITES BACK - (nfway <nfw@yahoo.com>)


In article <99e65015.0402191930.5d4a4357@posting.google.com>, Mark_Reichert@hotmail.com says... > Pnoi <pnoi@kremlin.nyet.ru> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.02.19.04.35.59.499504@kremlin.nyet.ru>... > > > FEARLESS -- or, even better, for yet another attempt to clone DAWSON'S > > > CREEK." > > > > > > T.E. > > > <snip> > > If Angel fans want to punish WB then except for "Smallville" boycott the > > other WB products. > > Except isn't Smallville a DAWSON'S CREEK clone as well? I never > really watched DAWSON'S CREEK, but the soap opera elements of > Smallville are the only things that drive me up the wall on the show. > Other than Smallville and Angel, what else does the WB have that is worth leaving the toilet?

2004-02-21 09:57:40-06:00 - Re: USA TODAY BITES BACK - (Thirsty Viking <john_doerter@hotmail.com>)


"Rowan Hawthorn" <rowan_hawthorn@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:lfbZb.659396$9p3.123712@news.easynews.com... > > "ragam" <ragam@ragam.com> wrote in message > news:jdea30dbofb779r9b50rtsv58oj5krpf5c@4ax.com... > > Plonk...kill filtered...I don't have the time or the patience to read such > > drivel from an obvious non-fan of the show. But don't worry, there's > plenty of > > TV for people of your viewing level out there! I'm sure you'll enjoy High > School > > Reunion or Extreme Makeover... > > I reached the same conclusions and the same response - killfiled three > others today, as well. Damn. I've used my killfile more over the past > three weeks than in the entire two years I've been on these newsgroups. I > don't mind reading someone not liking an episode for whatever *reason,* but Right there with you, her and several others today. I often wish people who "hate" the show or the season or whatever would just go away, stop watching but at least stop griping. Thats not going to happen obviously, so the killfile grows.

2004-02-21 11:42:04+00:00 - Re: USA TODAY BITES BACK - ("Michael C." <mcsuper5@usol.com>)


On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 20:20:17 -0500, nfway <nfw@yahoo.com> wrote: > In article <99e65015.0402191930.5d4a4357@posting.google.com>, > Mark_Reichert@hotmail.com says... > > Pnoi <pnoi@kremlin.nyet.ru> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.02.19.04.35.59.499504@kremlin.nyet.ru>... > > > > FEARLESS -- or, even better, for yet another attempt to clone DAWSON'S > > > > CREEK." > > > > > > > > T.E. > > > > > <snip> > > > If Angel fans want to punish WB then except for "Smallville" boycott the > > > other WB products. > > > > Except isn't Smallville a DAWSON'S CREEK clone as well? I never > > really watched DAWSON'S CREEK, but the soap opera elements of > > Smallville are the only things that drive me up the wall on the show. > > > Other than Smallville and Angel, what else does the WB have that is > worth leaving the toilet? Actually Gilmore Girls is usually pretty funny. YMMV. Michael C. -- mcsuper5@usol.com http://mcsuper5.freeshell.org/ Registered Linux User #303915 http://counter.li.org/

2004-02-21 11:44:57-08:00 - Re: USA TODAY BITES BACK - (nospam@nospam.com)


In article <c7b2ff96.0402201852.53973b29@posting.google.com>, JLB <barnett@shentel.net> wrote: > I never get why networks expect a dramatic change to cause a ratings > increase. Subtle changes sure, you keep the old and have a hope of > drawing in new. But you make a major dramatic change you're just as > likely to get rid of the old viewers as to keep them, and you're > betting on new viewers that may never materialize. They kept the same format for 3.5 years and the ratings never went up. Not that much of a surprise that they would think that a change in format would work.

2004-02-21 16:32:18-08:00 - Re: USA TODAY BITES BACK - (barnett@shentel.net)


<nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<210220041144570022%nospam@nospam.com>... > In article <c7b2ff96.0402201852.53973b29@posting.google.com>, JLB > <barnett@shentel.net> wrote: > > > > I never get why networks expect a dramatic change to cause a ratings > > increase. Subtle changes sure, you keep the old and have a hope of > > drawing in new. But you make a major dramatic change you're just as > > likely to get rid of the old viewers as to keep them, and you're > > betting on new viewers that may never materialize. > > They kept the same format for 3.5 years and the ratings never went up. > Not that much of a surprise that they would think that a change in > format would work. There is a difference between change, and major change. Such as killing Cordelia, bringing in Spike, giving Angel W&H and mindwiping most of the cast. JLB

2004-02-21 18:28:35+00:00 - Re: USA TODAY BITES BACK - (DangerGirl� <dangergir_eh@yahoo.com>)


> > Right there with you, her and several others today. I often > wish people who "hate" the show or the season or whatever > would just go away, stop watching but at least stop griping. > > Thats not going to happen obviously, so the killfile grows. *SIGH* Newbie's.... if you can't handle people disagreeing with you then perhaps a newsgroup isn't the forum for you to be in.

2004-02-21 21:01:41+00:00 - Re: USA TODAY BITES BACK - (Mark Nobles <cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com>)


DangerGirl� <dangergir_eh@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > Right there with you, her and several others today. I often > > wish people who "hate" the show or the season or whatever > > would just go away, stop watching but at least stop griping. > > > > Thats not going to happen obviously, so the killfile grows. > > *SIGH* Newbie's.... if you can't handle people disagreeing with you then > perhaps a newsgroup isn't the forum for you to be in. > It is one thing to be disagreeing, quite another to be disagreeable. There is no reason to put up with the latter, especially when has continued for days. We get it. You didn't like the episode. But when you respond to every post from someone who did, you are being disagreeable. Do you get the difference?

2004-02-21 23:55:39+00:00 - Re: USA TODAY BITES BACK - (Rowan Hawthorn <rowan_hawthorn@hotmail.com>)


"Mark Nobles" <cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com> wrote in message news:210220041501418563%cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com... > DangerGirl��� <dangergir_eh@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Right there with you, her and several others today. I often > > > wish people who "hate" the show or the season or whatever > > > would just go away, stop watching but at least stop griping. > > > > > > Thats not going to happen obviously, so the killfile grows. > > > > *SIGH* Newbie's.... if you can't handle people disagreeing with you then > > perhaps a newsgroup isn't the forum for you to be in. > > > It is one thing to be disagreeing, quite another to be disagreeable. > There is no reason to put up with the latter, especially when has > continued for days. > > We get it. You didn't like the episode. But when you respond to every > post from someone who did, you are being disagreeable. > Do you get the difference? Of course not. I *may* be new to the AtS ng, but I was on the BtVS ng for two years or so, and in that time, I don't think I've seen DG post *at all* except to make those kinds of remarks. I got tired of reading it, so she's killfiled. Tough noogies. There are other posters who don't like a particular episode or arc (hell, *I* don't like particular episodes or arcs,) but there's a difference between detailed discussions of positives and negatives and drive-by "everything about this show sucks" posts. If DG can't handle people commenting on her comments (or just saying, "screw this" and turning a deaf ear to her constant bitching,) then maybe a public newsgroup isn't the forum for *her.* She may have the right to say what she wants - but I don't have to waste time reading it, and there are a *lot* of posters who are a *lot* more interesting, even when I disagree with them. Which, if she spent as much time actually taking part in discussions as she does trolling for reactions, she'd know is pretty frequently. -- Rowan Hawthorn "I love mankind, it's people I can't stand." - Linus Van Pelt

2004-02-22 03:07:12+00:00 - Re: USA TODAY BITES BACK - (Mark Nobles <cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com>)


Rowan Hawthorn <rowan_hawthorn@hotmail.com> wrote: > "Mark Nobles" <cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com> wrote > > DangerGirl� <dangergir_eh@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Right there with you, her and several others today. I often > > > > wish people who "hate" the show or the season or whatever > > > > would just go away, stop watching but at least stop griping. > > > > > > > > Thats not going to happen obviously, so the killfile grows. > > > > > > *SIGH* Newbie's.... if you can't handle people disagreeing with you then > > > perhaps a newsgroup isn't the forum for you to be in. > > > > > It is one thing to be disagreeing, quite another to be disagreeable. > > There is no reason to put up with the latter, especially when has > > continued for days. > > > > We get it. You didn't like the episode. But when you respond to every > > post from someone who did, you are being disagreeable. > > Do you get the difference? > > Of course not. I *may* be new to the AtS ng, but I was on the BtVS ng for > two years or so, and in that time, I don't think I've seen DG post *at all* > except to make those kinds of remarks. I got tired of reading it, so she's > killfiled. Tough noogies. There are other posters who don't like a > particular episode or arc (hell, *I* don't like particular episodes or > arcs,) but there's a difference between detailed discussions of positives > and negatives and drive-by "everything about this show sucks" posts. If DG > can't handle people commenting on her comments (or just saying, "screw this" > and turning a deaf ear to her constant bitching,) then maybe a public > newsgroup isn't the forum for *her.* She may have the right to say what she > wants - but I don't have to waste time reading it, and there are a *lot* of > posters who are a *lot* more interesting, even when I disagree with them. > Which, if she spent as much time actually taking part in discussions as she > does trolling for reactions, she'd know is pretty frequently. Oh, no question she belongs in the bozo bin. I was just explaining to her why that is. I think you explain it much better than I did. --- She has freedom of speech. We have freedom to not listen. No censorship involved.

2004-02-22 03:37:22+00:00 - Re: USA TODAY BITES BACK - (Rowan Hawthorn <rowan_hawthorn@hotmail.com>)


"Mark Nobles" <cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com> wrote in message news:210220042107100751%cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com... > Rowan Hawthorn <rowan_hawthorn@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > "Mark Nobles" <cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com> wrote > > > DangerGirl��� <dangergir_eh@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right there with you, her and several others today. I often > > > > > wish people who "hate" the show or the season or whatever > > > > > would just go away, stop watching but at least stop griping. > > > > > > > > > > Thats not going to happen obviously, so the killfile grows. > > > > > > > > *SIGH* Newbie's.... if you can't handle people disagreeing with you then > > > > perhaps a newsgroup isn't the forum for you to be in. > > > > > > > It is one thing to be disagreeing, quite another to be disagreeable. > > > There is no reason to put up with the latter, especially when has > > > continued for days. > > > > > > We get it. You didn't like the episode. But when you respond to every > > > post from someone who did, you are being disagreeable. > > > Do you get the difference? > > > > Of course not. I *may* be new to the AtS ng, but I was on the BtVS ng for > > two years or so, and in that time, I don't think I've seen DG post *at all* > > except to make those kinds of remarks. I got tired of reading it, so she's > > killfiled. Tough noogies. There are other posters who don't like a > > particular episode or arc (hell, *I* don't like particular episodes or > > arcs,) but there's a difference between detailed discussions of positives > > and negatives and drive-by "everything about this show sucks" posts. If DG > > can't handle people commenting on her comments (or just saying, "screw this" > > and turning a deaf ear to her constant bitching,) then maybe a public > > newsgroup isn't the forum for *her.* She may have the right to say what she > > wants - but I don't have to waste time reading it, and there are a *lot* of > > posters who are a *lot* more interesting, even when I disagree with them. > > Which, if she spent as much time actually taking part in discussions as she > > does trolling for reactions, she'd know is pretty frequently. > > Oh, no question she belongs in the bozo bin. I was just explaining to > her why that is. Yeah, I know - the irritated tone wasn't aimed at you - but since she *is* killfiled, I had to sorta piggyback there...sorry... -- Rowan Hawthorn "I love mankind, it's people I can't stand." - Linus Van Pelt

2004-02-23 02:57:03+00:00 - Re: USA TODAY BITES BACK - (tsd@mspacman.gpcc.itd.umich.edu)


In article <p-2dnbbKAtds4qrd4p2dnA@comcast.com>, Thirsty Viking <jdoerter@kill.spam.comcast.net> wrote: : :"Rowan Hawthorn" <rowan_hawthorn@hotmail.com> wrote in message :news:lfbZb.659396$9p3.123712@news.easynews.com... :> :> "ragam" <ragam@ragam.com> wrote in message :> news:jdea30dbofb779r9b50rtsv58oj5krpf5c@4ax.com... :> > Plonk...kill filtered...I don't have the time or the patience to read :such :> > drivel from an obvious non-fan of the show. But don't worry, there's :> plenty of :> > TV for people of your viewing level out there! I'm sure you'll enjoy :High :> School :> > Reunion or Extreme Makeover... :> :> I reached the same conclusions and the same response - killfiled three :> others today, as well. Damn. I've used my killfile more over the past :> three weeks than in the entire two years I've been on these newsgroups. I :> don't mind reading someone not liking an episode for whatever *reason,* :but : :Right there with you, her and several others today. I often :wish people who "hate" the show or the season or whatever :would just go away, stop watching but at least stop griping. : :Thats not going to happen obviously, so the killfile grows. Count me as another one whos killfile has gotten a workout this past week. <sigh> 1) I will never understand the need some people have to continue to watch a show that they now hate; 2) I will never understand those same people continuing to post to the newsgroup dedicated to a show that they now hate; and 3) I will never understand those same people getting indignate when others ask them why they continuing doing #1 & #2. --

2004-02-23 05:56:48+00:00 - Re: USA TODAY BITES BACK - (Mark Nobles <cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com>)


Tammy Stephanie Davis <tsd@mspacman.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> wrote: > Thirsty Viking <jdoerter@kill.spam.comcast.net> wrote: > : > :"Rowan Hawthorn" <rowan_hawthorn@hotmail.com> wrote > :> > :> "ragam" <ragam@ragam.com> wrot > :> > Plonk...kill filtered...I don't have the time or the patience to read > :such > :> > drivel from an obvious non-fan of the show. But don't worry, there's > :> plenty of > :> > TV for people of your viewing level out there! I'm sure you'll enjoy > :High > :> School > :> > Reunion or Extreme Makeover... > :> > :> I reached the same conclusions and the same response - killfiled three > :> others today, as well. Damn. I've used my killfile more over the past > :> three weeks than in the entire two years I've been on these newsgroups. I > :> don't mind reading someone not liking an episode for whatever *reason,* > :but > : > :Right there with you, her and several others today. I often > :wish people who "hate" the show or the season or whatever > :would just go away, stop watching but at least stop griping. > : > :Thats not going to happen obviously, so the killfile grows. > > Count me as another one whos killfile has gotten a workout this > past week. <sigh> > > 1) I will never understand the need some people have to > continue to watch a show that they now hate; > > 2) I will never understand those same people continuing to > post to the newsgroup dedicated to a show that they now hate; and > > 3) I will never understand those same people getting indignate > when others ask them why they continuing doing #1 & #2. 4) I will never understand the need for other people to continue responding to those people who do #1 & #2, polluting real threads with their, well, #1 & #2 even after they have been killfiled. (Not you, Tammy. Just adding to your list.)

2004-02-23 11:47:17-08:00 - Re: USA TODAY BITES BACK - (ladypeyton@yahoo.com)


"DangerGirl�" <dangergir_eh@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<EHXYb.29232$D_5.20382@edtnps84>... > "Thomas E. O'Sullivan" <teo3@erols.com> wrote in message > news:4033f19d$0$3091$61fed72c@news.rcn.com... > > From USA TODAY - 2/18/04 - CRITIC'S CORNER BY: ROBERT BIANCO > > > > "No series is having a much better season that ANGEL (WB, 9 p.m. > ET/PT), > > as witnessed by tonight's funny, creepy outing about a children's show > that > > steals children's souls while upholding 'a certain standard of quality > > edutatinment.' The best joke is on Angel, who is turned into a > perpetually > > scowling puppet. It's a great episode, which makes the news that WB is > > canceling the show that much harder to take. Still, you can't blame the > > network. It has to make room for the next TARZAN, BIRDS OF PREY or > > FEARLESS -- or, even better, for yet another attempt to clone DAWSON'S > > CREEK." > > > > T.E > > Seems to me that JW won't be surprised by this cancellation, and if his > writing this season is any indication, he is pushing for it to be taken off > the air for what-ever reasons. This puppet show made it more then obvious. > There have been other shows in the past (Dynasty) that did the same type of > tactic. Write worse and worse shows until it just dies. It's a shame, I > really enjoyed it when he tried. The characters have no personalities they > are like watching paint dry, Angel is like a piece of wood. The only > animated and semi interesting character is Spike and he is new and only > tends to end up annoying. There is absolutely nothing at all interesting or > intriguing about any of them this season. JW just wants out - its obvious. Wow. I've been watching Joss's television since season 2 of Buffy and I have to say IMO this is the best season of Angel *ever*. Smile Time was brilliant. Angel isn't wooden, he's spent most of the season in crisis. Eve is fascinating, Gunn is perplexing, Spike is perfect (as usual) and Harmony is a blast. I'm sorry you're not enjoying the season, but I have to say the writing is absolutely inspired this season. Peyton

2004-02-23 11:53:26-08:00 - Re: USA TODAY BITES BACK - (ladypeyton@yahoo.com)


"DangerGirl�" <dangergir_eh@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<Fq3Zb.26075$n17.6830@clgrps13>... > "jere7my tho?rpe" <j7y@liws.org> wrote in message > news:j7y-5A657D.03542219022004@visonmassif.rs.itd.umich.edu... > > In article <190220040315140186%dsample@synapse.net>, > > Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> wrote: > > > > > In article <j7y-A5A014.01532219022004@visonmassif.rs.itd.umich.edu>, > > > jere7my tho?rpe <j7y@liws.org> wrote: > > > > > > > In article <%MYYb.29292$D_5.3328@edtnps84>, > > > > "DangerGirl�" <dangergir_eh@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I am not your "buddy" and JW did write it along with Ben Edlund. > > > > > > > > A "Story by" credit does not imply any actual writing. As I > > > > understand it, Edlund based the episode on an idea by Joss. > > > > > > Considering Joss's history of giving sole credit to pretty much every > > > writer on every series he's run, even when he's been the one behind the > > > story, and has done some major rewrites on some of their scripts, I > > > think that including him in the credit this time means he actually did > > > a fair amount of the writing. > > > > According to that cancellation article, it was "based on an idea" > > by Joss: > > > > "Next week, on Wednesday, Feb. 18, "Angel" airs one of its most > > innovative episodes, called "Smile Time." Written and directed by Ben > > Edlund ("The Tick"), and based on an idea by Whedon, it sees the show's > > title character, a crusading vampire with a soul, forced to fight evil > > after being transformed into a walking puppet (with voice by series star > > David Boreanaz)." > > > > http://tv.zap2it.com/tveditorial/tve_main/1,1002,271%7C86346%7C1%7C,00.ht > > ml > > > > The humor sounded more like Edlund than Joss, too. > > > > ----j7y > > You know I really don't care if JW wrote it or Edlund wrote it or if Jim > Hensen did, I didn't like it. If I wanted puppets I'd watch sesame street. > What I liked about the writing of Angel was its intellectual ability to > attract people of a different generation. This ep was not geared that way. I > certainly found the Muppets much funnier and I expected that level of humour > from them. Not from this show, I expect better from this show, but this > season it's not surprising. Wow, IMO you missed the entire point of the episode. It certainly had many levels of meaning starting with the "Angel is tired of bweing a puppet to the higher powers" and travelling right down to "The ME writers are tired of being puppets of the network" I'm certainly a different generation and I consider this season is the most brilliantly written season of Angel to date. Maybe Edlund's humor is not to your taste, but never say it's the intellectual level of Sesame Street. To say so means you've completely missed the deeper meaning and metaphore Edlund *always* puts in his work. Peyton fan of Edlund since the late 80's - early 90's

2004-02-23 15:37:21+00:00 - Re: USA TODAY BITES BACK - (DangerGirl� <dangergir_eh@yahoo.com>)


Do a google search I've been posting for the past 4 years - Sheesh Try here: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=alt look for this group, then type in "Dangergirl" . "Mark Nobles" <cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com> wrote in message news:210220042107100751%cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com... > Rowan Hawthorn <rowan_hawthorn@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > "Mark Nobles" <cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com> wrote > > > DangerGirl��� <dangergir_eh@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right there with you, her and several others today. I often > > > > > wish people who "hate" the show or the season or whatever > > > > > would just go away, stop watching but at least stop griping. > > > > > > > > > > Thats not going to happen obviously, so the killfile grows. > > > > > > > > *SIGH* Newbie's.... if you can't handle people disagreeing with you then > > > > perhaps a newsgroup isn't the forum for you to be in. > > > > > > > It is one thing to be disagreeing, quite another to be disagreeable. > > > There is no reason to put up with the latter, especially when has > > > continued for days. > > > > > > We get it. You didn't like the episode. But when you respond to every > > > post from someone who did, you are being disagreeable. > > > Do you get the difference? > > > > Of course not. I *may* be new to the AtS ng, but I was on the BtVS ng for > > two years or so, and in that time, I don't think I've seen DG post *at all* > > except to make those kinds of remarks. I got tired of reading it, so she's > > killfiled. Tough noogies. There are other posters who don't like a > > particular episode or arc (hell, *I* don't like particular episodes or > > arcs,) but there's a difference between detailed discussions of positives > > and negatives and drive-by "everything about this show sucks" posts. If DG > > can't handle people commenting on her comments (or just saying, "screw this" > > and turning a deaf ear to her constant bitching,) then maybe a public > > newsgroup isn't the forum for *her.* She may have the right to say what she > > wants - but I don't have to waste time reading it, and there are a *lot* of > > posters who are a *lot* more interesting, even when I disagree with them. > > Which, if she spent as much time actually taking part in discussions as she > > does trolling for reactions, she'd know is pretty frequently. > > Oh, no question she belongs in the bozo bin. I was just explaining to > her why that is. I think you explain it much better than I did. > > --- > She has freedom of speech. > We have freedom to not listen. > No censorship involved.

2004-02-23 15:54:10+00:00 - Re: USA TODAY BITES BACK - (DangerGirl� <dangergir_eh@yahoo.com>)


> Of course not. I *may* be new to the AtS ng, but I was on the BtVS ng for > two years or so, and in that time, I don't think I've seen DG post *at all* > except to make those kinds of remarks. I got tired of reading it, so she's > killfiled. Tough noogies. There are other posters who don't like a > particular episode or arc (hell, *I* don't like particular episodes or > arcs,) but there's a difference between detailed discussions of positives > and negatives and drive-by "everything about this show sucks" posts. If DG > can't handle people commenting on her comments (or just saying, "screw this" > and turning a deaf ear to her constant bitching,) then maybe a public > newsgroup isn't the forum for *her.* She may have the right to say what she > wants - but I don't have to waste time reading it, and there are a *lot* of > posters who are a *lot* more interesting, even when I disagree with them. > Which, if she spent as much time actually taking part in discussions as she > does trolling for reactions, she'd know is pretty frequently. > > -- > Rowan Hawthorn > > "I love mankind, it's people I can't stand." - Linus Van Pelt You are new, and its very obvious. I don't agree with you, don't like it? Too bad. I love the show and if you are truly paying attention to anything I wrote you would know that. I am disappointed by this season, look back through the begining of the seasons posts you will see I am NOT alone in that. I really don't care if you killfile me thats up to you but don't whine - I hate whining. You want to see my posts look at the below link and read over the past 3 - 4 years of them. I didn't post to buffy but I think once (because I was looking for the name of the song christian Kane sang on Angel.. not sure). I didn't like buffy, still don't - so no you wouldn't know me. http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=dangergirl+group%3Aalt.tv.angel&btnG=Google+Search&meta=group%3Dalt.tv.angel

2004-02-23 18:53:35-06:00 - Re: USA TODAY BITES BACK - (Thirsty Viking <john_doerter@hotmail.com>)


"Mark Nobles" <cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com> wrote in message news:220220042356488042%cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com... > Tammy Stephanie Davis <tsd@mspacman.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> wrote: > > > Thirsty Viking <jdoerter@kill.spam.comcast.net> wrote: > > : > > :"Rowan Hawthorn" <rowan_hawthorn@hotmail.com> wrote > > :> > > :> "ragam" <ragam@ragam.com> wrot > > :> > Plonk...kill filtered...I don't have the time or the patience to read > > :such > > :> > drivel from an obvious non-fan of the show. But don't worry, there's > > :> plenty of > > :> > TV for people of your viewing level out there! I'm sure you'll enjoy > > :High > > :> School > > :> > Reunion or Extreme Makeover... > > :> > > :> I reached the same conclusions and the same response - killfiled three > > :> others today, as well. Damn. I've used my killfile more over the past > > :> three weeks than in the entire two years I've been on these newsgroups. I > > :> don't mind reading someone not liking an episode for whatever *reason,* > > :but > > : > > :Right there with you, her and several others today. I often > > :wish people who "hate" the show or the season or whatever > > :would just go away, stop watching but at least stop griping. > > : > > :Thats not going to happen obviously, so the killfile grows. > > > > Count me as another one whos killfile has gotten a workout this > > past week. <sigh> > > > > 1) I will never understand the need some people have to > > continue to watch a show that they now hate; > > > > 2) I will never understand those same people continuing to > > post to the newsgroup dedicated to a show that they now hate; and > > > > 3) I will never understand those same people getting indignate > > when others ask them why they continuing doing #1 & #2. > > 4) I will never understand the need for other people to continue > responding to those people who do #1 & #2, polluting real threads with > their, well, #1 & #2 even after they have been killfiled. > (Not you, Tammy. Just adding to your list.) Some of us are slower to write them off, maybe because we've been in the group less time. But we're Learning.

2004-02-23 18:57:11-06:00 - Re: USA TODAY BITES BACK - (Thirsty Viking <john_doerter@hotmail.com>)


"Peyton" <ladypeyton@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:9c27d64c.0402231153.2d686f42@posting.google.com... > > Wow, IMO you missed the entire point of the episode. It certainly had > many levels of meaning starting with the "Angel is tired of bweing a > puppet to the higher powers" and travelling right down to "The ME > writers are tired of being puppets of the network" > > I'm certainly a different generation and I consider this season is the > most brilliantly written season of Angel to date. Maybe Edlund's > humor is not to your taste, but never say it's the intellectual level > of Sesame Street. To say so means you've completely missed the deeper > meaning and metaphore Edlund *always* puts in his work. > This would be the only season of angel to have JW attention almost undivided by other deadlines.... true there has been firefly movie... but no other weekely series. I think that has added a lot to the Brilliance level. There have been some paths I was less happy with, but the writting has been dead on for the course chosen IMO.

2004-02-23 21:03:10-05:00 - Re: USA TODAY BITES BACK - (forge <forge@diespammersdie.youneedageek.com>)


On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 19:53:25 GMT, "DangerGirl�" <dangergir_eh@yahoo.com> wrote: >Sorry I wasn't amused by the puppets, guess I just don't have that level of >mentality. I grew out of the Muppets years ago. Only idiots and snobs "grow out" of things like The Muppets. Henson and company aim their humor at all ages and have never worked on an "idiot" level (like Barney) and have never talked down to people or assumed they're stupid. Thus the reason you don't like them.

2004-02-23 21:03:54-05:00 - Re: USA TODAY BITES BACK - (forge <forge@diespammersdie.youneedageek.com>)


On 21 Feb 2004 11:42:04 GMT, "Michael C." <mcsuper5@usol.com> wrote: >> Other than Smallville and Angel, what else does the WB have that is >> worth leaving the toilet? > >Actually Gilmore Girls is usually pretty funny. And Lauren Graham is frelling gorgeous (and has the cutest bottom on teevee, bar none).

2004-02-23 21:13:37-05:00 - Re: USA TODAY BITES BACK - (forge <forge@diespammersdie.youneedageek.com>)


On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 02:57:03 GMT, tsd@mspacman.gpcc.itd.umich.edu (Tammy Stephanie Davis) wrote: >3) I will never understand those same people getting indignate >when others ask them why they continuing doing #1 & #2. Can't figger that one out myself.

2004-02-24 21:49:49-05:00 - Re: USA TODAY BITES BACK - (forge <forge@diespammersdie.youneedageek.com>)


On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 11:20:48 -0800, Alicat <me@privacy.net> wrote: >Yeah! (Just watching some old tapes of Fraggle Rock the other day and >enjoyed them just as much as when I saw them during my kid's toddler >days - he's 12 and still finds them funny too....) [a Doozer watches a Fraggle eating some of his work] "...It's good to see folks enjoying the architecture."